When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
All praise Cam Motion for this learning experience! But since someone brought up absolute stump pullers...
I've been thinking about this for awhile. I have a 2000 2500 with the LQ4, so I got the tiny LM7 cam at 114 LSA and iron heads. I kinda like it this way since the truck is a stick shift and it pretty much always has torque, but I know the 6.0s can take waaaay more cam than that. However, as beefy as the NV4500 is, it doesn't like to spin 6 grand plus...
*I hate to bring up a cam that isn't Cam Motions, but since someone mentioned something like 210 intake lobe with a tight LSA, here is one*
Callies Performance 180-009. It's 210/218 at 108LSA and ground with +3 advance giving: IVO: 0* BTDC IVC: 30* ABDC EVO: 40* BBDC EVC: -2* ATDC
All praise Cam Motion for this learning experience! But since someone brought up absolute stump pullers...
I've been thinking about this for awhile. I have a 2000 2500 with the LQ4, so I got the tiny LM7 cam at 114 LSA and iron heads. I kinda like it this way since the truck is a stick shift and it pretty much always has torque, but I know the 6.0s can take waaaay more cam than that. However, as beefy as the NV4500 is, it doesn't like to spin 6 grand plus...
*I hate to bring up a cam that isn't Cam Motions, but since someone mentioned something like 210 intake lobe with a tight LSA, here is one*
Callies Performance 180-009. It's 210/218 at 108LSA and ground with +3 advance giving: IVO: 0* BTDC IVC: 30* ABDC EVO: 40* BBDC EVC: -2* ATDC
I'm thinking reeeeeeeal hard about getting one for my truck.
I think the Titan 1 Truck cam is an even better choice:
Part# 03-01-0198 Grind # XA208/325-XA214/325-10+4 High Performance & Off-Road Duration at .050: 208/214 110 Lobe Center Angle with a 106 Intake Centerline Lift with 1.7 Rocker Arm Ratio: .553"/.553"
-2 IVO
30 IVC
41 EVO
-7 IVC
The difference is that the Titan 1 Truck cam has 7 degrees less overlap, so it will idle better and have better throttle response. This will be especially important when running the tight stock truck torque converter.
What is impressive is that this is with the big 823 rectangle port heads, It will be even torquier with cathedral heads.
Last edited by CAMMOTION PERF; 07-08-2021 at 09:52 PM.
Insane? Absolutely not. Trying stuff is fun. If you want it, I will make it. But, because the specs are so unusual, I don't have any cores on the shelf that will make it. So, we would have to make it from scratch. This is not problem, but these "one-off" cams cost $650 and take about 8 weeks to make.
Well at least you gave it lip service... lol. Mainly this was a mind exercise for me and I THINK Grubinski. Just some what ifs.....
This thread is a blast! Looking at the tested cams does stuff like the above speculation/goofing off.
Gearhead food....
I think the Titan 1 Truck cam is an even better choice:
Part# 03-01-0198 Grind # XA208/325-XA214/325-10+4 High Performance & Off-Road Duration at .050: 208/214 110 Lobe Center Angle with a 106 Intake Centerline Lift with 1.7 Rocker Arm Ratio: .553"/.553"
-2 IVO
30 IVC
41 EVO
-7 IVC
The difference is that the Titan 1 Truck cam has 7 degrees less overlap, so it will idle better and have better throttle response.
What is impressive is that this is with the big 823 rectangle port heads, It will be even torquier with cathedral heads.
You know I guess I forgot how drastic the rec ports are vs cat ports. I remember seeing the dyno graph earlier, but kinda glossed over it cause I saw the torque peak over 5K.
Looking at it again, the Titan 1 would be pretty ideal.
I saw a vid of someone with the callie and it had a decent lump at idle. I'm kinda trying to be a sleeper so less chop with your cam would be the bumble bee's knee caps!
If only someone made affordable small bore LS3 heads with smallish chambers. The GM ones are OK but 72cc chambers kinda kills it.
It would need the same valve placement as the cathedral head so it will fit smaller bore heads. Essentially, a cathedral head with rectangular ports. Doable, but to what advantage when there are cathedrals that almost outperform LS3 heads?
With 20 IVC, I'm guessing dynamic compression might get a bit high. I'd bet it would pull stumps, though.
Originally Posted by G Atsma
You are a mind reader! LOL I have often thought about taking the LM7 cam, bringing the LSA down to about 104 for a -19.5 overlap and 20 IVC.
I wonder if it would even run half decent.
Originally Posted by grubinski
Stock LM7 is supposedly 190/191 on 114 ... I'll assume 114+0
That gives -37.5 degrees overlap at .050"
IVC 29ABDC, EVO 29.5 BBDC, IVO 19 ATDC, EVC 18.5 BTDC.
If I was **really** going to do a towing cam for my LM7, I'd probably want something like the 208 lobes above, but on a 109 LSA.
That would give -10 degrees overlap, and IVC 33, EVO 33 ... the slightly later IVC would allow 4.8 pistons in my LM7 for a little more compression, and probably better fuel economy. The -10 overlap would probably help the idle and low end compared to the crazy 104 LSA in the cam mentioned above.
Originally Posted by grubinski
Just for fun, one cam you could build with a 104 LSA would be a 208/208 104+0. This would have essentially the same IVC and EVO events as the stock cam in my LM7, but 0 overlap at .050” instead of about -38 degrees. Since the lobes are 208 degrees duration rather than the stock LM7 191-ish, you’d be able to gain some valve lift.
In an otherwise stock LM7, I suspect this might be a nice towing cam. Not sure if the 0 overlap would lead to any noticeable idle. Not sure if this cam would have *any* more top end than the stock cam, even with the added overlap, since IVC and EVO are near stock.
Actual towing cams offered seem to utilize later IVC and earlier EVO and wind up with a bit more duration and wider LSA (110-ish seems common). I suspect that this is because people who buy “towing cams” want to see more power even at 6000 rpm, despite the fact that this has nothing to do with real world towing.
I’d be curious to hear input from CamMotion re: tradeoffs between the cam I suggested here and the towing cams commonly sold.
Originally Posted by CAMMOTION PERF
Insane? Absolutely not. Trying stuff is fun. If you want it, I will make it. But, because the specs are so unusual, I don't have any cores on the shelf that will make it. So, we would have to make it from scratch. This is not problem, but these "one-off" cams cost $650 and take about 8 weeks to make.
Y'all are basically talking about diesel cams. Helped a friend swapped a 185/188-106 into a Dmax. Makes you appreciate the LS. Although I do like the timing gears. Harder to screw up. Only .420 lift on the thing too.
I think the Titan 1 Truck cam is an even better choice:
Part# 03-01-0198 Grind # XA208/325-XA214/325-10+4 High Performance & Off-Road Duration at .050: 208/214 110 Lobe Center Angle with a 106 Intake Centerline Lift with 1.7 Rocker Arm Ratio: .553"/.553"
-2 IVO
30 IVC
41 EVO
-7 IVC
The difference is that the Titan 1 Truck cam has 7 degrees less overlap, so it will idle better and have better throttle response. This will be especially important when running the tight stock truck torque converter.
What is impressive is that this is with the big 823 rectangle port heads, It will be even torquier with cathedral heads.
Originally Posted by shakenfake
Currently I have the TSP Stage 2 truck cam low lift 212/218. It is not so much a specific cam on this thread that makes me want to change but looking at cams makes me want to change haha
If I have to do something different I think I would go a little larger and go high lift. When I went to swap cams originally I had my eyes on that Summit 218/227 low lift or high lift and I almost pulled the trigger but changed my mind. I think a little less power in the low end and some more in the top end would make it a tad more fun. I don't floor it every day but I like to give it the juice every now and then and I just wonder maybe I should have went for something a little bigger. Especially with some extra mods like a different intake, heads etc etc
Some may call me dumb but I do enjoy the hot rodded sound and the looks you get when you have a little more chop. This factors in a tiny bit.
I had the same TSP low lift truck cam in my 08 Sierra, it was my first cam swap on an LS and I was happy with it for what it was. I was coming from a diesel but that was getting expensive and needed injectors and the amount, weight, and distance I tow theses days has dropped way off so a gasser will do me just fine. Picked up a 2500 2x4 and had been eyeing this cam and swapping on a set of 799's I have onto the 6.0, this might just be the kick in *** I need to finally place the order.
Y'all are basically talking about diesel cams. Helped a friend swapped a 185/188-106 into a Dmax. Makes you appreciate the LS. Although I do like the timing gears. Harder to screw up. Only .420 lift on the thing too.
IMO, you want to make a 5.3 a stump puller, go small on the cam and put a big nasty blower on it.
We aren’t allowed to talk about boost or high rpm power in here. When you drive 1000 hp cars on the street and can blow the tires off at 80 mph without down shifting you become willing to trade some low rpm TQ for high rpm power. Not everyone realizes some people have different goals or are willing to accept any goals that differ from their own. But I’m just a “boy” and a “red neck” even though I actually race and drive my car in the street too.
And yet other old guys who prefer N/A setups will use the milder cam with more low and midrange torque to clean the clocks of grossly over-cammed, peaky builds because their owners HAD to have shaking-like-a-dog-crapping-peach-seeds chopping cam so the peanut gallery can hear what great engine builders they are.... lol
I know i give you **** sometimes, but this may be your best post ever.
I know i give you **** sometimes, but this may be your best post ever.
Naw man, you're cool with me. We have similar senses of humor.... lol
That post puts in a nutshell my thoughts on too-big cams in engines not built to handle them.
We aren’t allowed to talk about boost or high rpm power in here. When you drive 1000 hp cars on the street and can blow the tires off at 80 mph without down shifting you become willing to trade some low rpm TQ for high rpm power. Not everyone realizes some people have different goals or are willing to accept any goals that differ from their own. But I’m just a “boy” and a “red neck” even though I actually race and drive my car in the street too.
You're right -- offending statement editted out...
I don't want to derale the thread, cause that hasn't happened as of yet,
But my question is regarding VVT cams.
Why don't we see more of them?
The concept sounds good on paper, but in the real world, is it not worth it?
This is probably the best thread i've seen on LStech this year.
Originally Posted by Che70velle
Without question!
Thanx guys.
VVT does work and does have its place for sure. VVT has more limitations in a single cam engine compared to a multi-cam engine that has a separate intake and exhaust cam. This is because when you move a single cam, the intake and exhaust valve events all move the same amount together. They can't be controlled separately like they can in an engine like the Ford Coyote that has separate intake and exhaust cams.
From my experience, smaller duration cams lend themselves to and respond better to a VVT scenario than larger duration cams in a single cam engine. Since most of what we do is performance work, there is not much call for smaller VVT cams. We do have some smaller duration VVT offerings for the Gen 5 LT
Also, Gwatney Performance has some VVT grinds that they had success with. You might check out their offerings.
Last edited by speedtigger; 07-10-2021 at 08:55 AM.
It surprises me that there isn't more excitement around VVT in performance cars. For big cams I can see PTV issues being a problem, but my intuition says it should be possible to give a medium-ish cam an extra-wide powerband and some more top end with VVT. Like say 228/232 @ 112, and move the intake centerline from +6 at low RPM to -4 at high RPM.
The 243s became available at the end of testing. So, they were not tested with very many cams. Mainly they were put on out of curiosity to see how they would compare against the 706s and 823s. Also, when we swapped over to the 243 heads, one of the ARP head stud broke during torqueing to spec.. That cost us some dyno time which was scheduled to end that day.
Here is a mostly, "kinda fair" dyno test between 706, 243 and 823 cylinder heads on a junkyard 6 liter with a cam. What makes it fair: All the exact same short-block on the exact same dyno. Same Carburetor. Same Headers Very similar intake manifolds (Super Victor cathedral vs Holley 300-291 rectangle port) What makes it a little unfair: The 243 heads had a fresh multi-angle performance valve-job whereas the 706 and 823 heads had a factory valve job. The 823 head test had a 232/244 cam whereas the others had a 236/244 cam.
apparently compression means power everywhere except the RPM range we like to drag race in lol I'm kidding stay with me here. Obviously in the real world the compression along with the smaller port and valve much improves the power curve and engine response on the far left of the graph all the way to the right until that smaller orifice becomes an obvious restriction as so wonderfully illustrated in this comparison and that is relatable to any other combination with no other changes but apparently in 2021 1000-3000 rpm is still only testable by building and trying s*** on the street, the part, we don't get to see, The part we spend most of our time in is on the street in that 1000 to 3,000 RPM range or if you're like me and you have 2.73 gears and a stock stall behind your stock 706 headed LQ4 (mine's got 4.065" LS3 Pistons if you want to guess my compression) the 750 to 2000 RPM range is all I ever see driving it around on the street even up to highway speed 80 mph my engine will not tack over 2000 RPM unless you step on it pretty hard with 2.73s and it never sees more than 6,000 RPM at Wot though it went to 7K on the dyno with no issues. Most on here have better gears than me in their daily but this is strictly a street car (not a drag racer but I will get to that and how I think it relates to the graph in a minute) but obviously the RPM range and power made we are talking about above in the graph where static compression seems to matter much less than it's corresponding port and valve size (above 5K with stock heads) is real. So if you're still with me I'm not trying to rip this test I'm trying to learn something from it that would apply to the hypothetical left end of the graph below 3k that we can't see, I have questions but I think it's important to see what compromises can be made in a build and still get that power we want where we want it be it high or low rpm or some compromise, I have another combination with an LQ9 with the stock heads on it still I haven't bothered to put my extra 243s on it because I put a 233/243 114+5 lsa in it but only an LS6 intake and 1-3/4" headers, but good 3" duals. It's stable to 7,500 RPM and it's got a 3,800 stall converter with 4.10 gears and 26" Hoosiers behind it. I'm still tuning the shift points for the best ET because I assume it plateaus somewhere above 6K though I haven't had it on a dyno yet I'll get there, but I bracket race the car 12.0 bracket and it already runs better than 12.0 with no sweat at all so I'm happy to slow it down a little bit in the tune lol, hence no need for the added compression of the better heads it's already fast enough for what I'm trying to do with it but obviously other people, most people on here want as much power as they can get or whatever I understand that but I'm trying to chase torque and low end response though with my other 6.0 combination because it simply cannot use RPM it needs to work in that low low untestable lol low RPM range 750-2000rpm where the 706 heads on a flat top 4.065" bore with stock F-body manifolds isn't really choking it to death at all works very well in that range, the car has amazing response just a light touch of the toe and the speedo needle starts twisting and a big hurry, I started with a 212-218-115 + 0 and moved up to a 226 230 112 +4 both of these have the same IVC of 41 idle perfect at 666 RPM and give me no issues with detonation on 93 under load with the tall gears or anything . Id like to keep some of the better mid-range of the longer duration cam but the added overlap is getting annoying and I'm missing a noticeable bit of the torque that I had in that low low locked converter range on the highway with the smaller cam so my actual question if you're still with me lol, is I was wondering with so much compression with my combination how much can I move the valve events around between these two smaller streety cams to come up with some happy medium for my daily parking lot racer, Let's hear some new cam ideas for my 706 heads on a LS3 bore with a ls6 intake and stock exhaust manifolds that should make the most of my combination based on what we've learned from all these fun pictures without creating too much of that nasty chop for them real racer boys, I'm just an amateur enthusiast 😁
I understand that but I'm trying to chase torque and low end response though with my other 6.0 combination because it simply cannot use RPM it needs to work in that low low untestable lol low RPM range 750-2000rpm where the 706 heads on a flat top 4.065" bore with stock F-body manifolds isn't really choking it to death at all works very well in that range, the car has amazing response just a light touch of the toe and the speedo needle starts twisting and a big hurry, I started with a 212-218-115 + 0 and moved up to a 226 230 112 +4 both of these have the same IVC of 41 idle perfect at 666 RPM and give me no issues with detonation on 93 under load with the tall gears or anything .
This is where all my fun is also, little harder to find info on these cams...Us 2500HD guys really like the torque...
07-08-2021, 09:12 PM
All the exact same short-block on the exact same dyno.
